SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(All) 2629

[2006(8) ADJ 364]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : TARUN AGARWALA, J.
RAMVEER SINGH AND OTHERS —Petitioners
Versus
GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (GAIL) AND OTHERS ——Respondents
(Writ Petition No. 2140 of 2004, 28608 of 2003 and 3601 of 2004,
decided on 21st September, 2006)

Advocates appeared:
Ashok Khare, V.D. Chauhan and H.N. Singh for the Petitioners; Navin Sinha, Siddharth Singh, S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:Absorption—Petitioners were offered appointment as Junior Fireman Trainees on terms and conditions that training would be for a period of two years and if the performance was found unsatisfactory, training would be extended by six months—Consolidated stipend was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 4,300/- plus Rs. 400/- as canteen subsidy—On completion of training for two years management extended their training by one year for which no letter was issued—These candidates were those land oustees whose lands were acquired for Gas Authority of India Ltd.—Allowing the writ held that the action of the respondents to permit the petitioners for considerable length of time gave them a flicker of hope for being absorbed in the service—As such they are entitled to claim for their absorption—Mandamus issued to respondents to consider their absorption in regular cadre within three months and in case there is no vacancy, they would be allowed to continue on minimum pay scale till regular posts are created in the regular cadre. [Paras 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The land of the petitioners was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) to set up a project known as “ Uttar Pradesh Petrochemicals Complex”. A lot of hue and cry was raised by the land owners against the acquisition proceedings and eventually, a tripartite agreement dated 29.6.1998 was executed between the land oustees, the district authorities, and the Management of Gas Authority of India Limited. The agreement contained a stipulation that one member of a family would be given an employment. This condition of employment was incorporated as per the prevailing policy of the State Government. Based on the aforesaid, the petitioners were offered an appointment as “Junior Fireman Trainee” in the project. The terms and conditions of the appointment was that the training would be for a period of two years and if the performance was found unsatisfactory, in that case, the period of training would be extended by six months. The trainees would be paid a consolidated stipend of Rs. 4300.00 plus canteen subsidy @ Rs. 400/- per month and that it was not obligatory on the part of the management to offer an appointment after the completion of the training period. The offer of appointment further stipulated that the management would retain the discretion to consider the trainees for a suitable absorption as per the terms and conditions of the absorption as laid down by the management, and if absorbed, the trainee would be placed in the minimum pay scale and that the training period would not be counted towards the service period. For facility, clause 12 of the terms and conditions of the offer of the appointment is detailed herein below :

“It shall not be obligatory on the part of GAIL to offer any employment to the trainee on completion of the period of training. However, GAIL Management retains the discretion to consider the trainee for suitable absorption in the services of GAIL, subject to successful completion of training, performance on any interview/test(s) which may be conducted by the GAIL Management and on the terms and conditions of absorption as laid down. On completion of the period of training, the trainees may be absorbed at the minimum of the pay scale of the level/grade in which they are to be placed.”

2. The petitioners contended that the aforesaid offer of appointment was accepted and upon the completion of the training period of two years, the Management extended their training period by one year and thereafter, no letter of the extension of the training or for any other purpose, was issued and the management silently allowed the petitioners to continue as trainees in the project. It was submitted that the petitioners had been working since then continuously and that regular work was being taken from them and that they are performing the same work as done by the regular workers, and therefore, prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to absorb them as regular junior firemen and pay them a regular salary.

3. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate as well as Shri H.N. Singh, the learned Counsels for the petitioners and Sri Navin Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Siddharth Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that upon the completion of their training, the management had allowed them to work and that regular work was being taken by the management which was the same work as performed by the regular workers, and therefore, there was no difference in the work performed by the petitioners as trainees with the work performed by the regular workers. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that they are working in the project continuously for a continuous length of time, and therefore, they are now liable to be absorbed as regular employees of the project. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the action of the manag















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top